As the use of the web grows, so does the use of forums, blogs, etc. where people converse, share opinions, etc. It's wonderful. For barbecue enthusiasts it provides us a platform to discuss our love other than on weekends when competing/judging and we're too tired to think straight. It's wonderful.

Lately, from what I've been reading, nothing seems more controversial than the judging and subsequent scoring of appearance. Interesting point of note, that I know of, all of the sanctioning bodies that train and certify judges have only 1 category where they train pretty much exactly the same, and it's the Appearance category. Judges are trained that it is subjective, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that what you're scoring is how appetizing the entry is to you (the beholder). That's it. Allow me to reiterate: how appetizing the entry is to the beholder. The one key word in this: appetizing.

The question each judge should ask themselves each time they gaze in the box is a very simple question:Is this entry appetizing?

The answer comes in the emotion stirred. If the beholder has an uncontrollable urge to grab a piece and take a bite, then by all means that's a perfect score (in KCBSland that's a 9, MBN is a 10). Everything else is a step down from there, each score defined by the different sanctioning bodies.

There's been very little argument/discussion about the above. However, there has been lots of discussion and some heated debates about what is and isn't appetizing, and what should and shouldn't get high scores in the Appearance category, and why.

Everyone, judge and cook alike, should know that this category is probably the most subjective category out there. What is appetizing to one person may not be appetizing to another. It gets to human psyche. I'm sure that all of Pavlov's dogs didnt salivate every time; some probably weren't as motivated as others. It's nature.

One thing I would caution both judge and cook alike is this: please stick to your training and the definition of the category, which is (as stated above): is this appetizing.There has been a growing trend lately (fueled by BBQ Pitmasters TV series) of muffin pan chicken. While some (dare I say most) people find the little round pieces of chicken beautiful and appetizing, there are a number of other people that dont find it appetizing whatsoever.

I think you'll find that pork that is cut or sliced tends to be regional in its appeal and what is and isn't appetizing.

Some clever cooks have a sense of humor and proudly display it when using the money muscle in their pork presentation. Just know that some people find it appetizing, and others dont.

I'm not here to debate which is right or which is wrong. I just want judges to remember their training, and cooks to understand that it's about appetizing and what is and isn't appetizing. It's that simple.

Remember, as judges, we're not here to give bonus points for effort. If you find it (whatever it is) appetizing, sco

GREAT job Hance! You've really hit the nail on the head with this article! One other thing that can be visually pleasing is when a team puts more than one type of meat in the box (i.e., burnt ends along with slices, chopped along with pulled pork, chopped or sliced chicken along with thighs, etc.). NOT required, but adds to the visual appeal and makes it more "appetizing".

Reply

Hance

9/23/2011 12:48:05

Thanks Tom! You're right. There's a whole science in to what is and isn't visually appealing to the human eye. Colors are huge in this, with contrast (a LONG time ago [seems like another lifetime] I worked in the printing industry, art department, in both packaging and advertising of food) looming large. This is why KCBS's green garnish looks so appealing and actually enhances (for most of us) the appetizing nature of the food, even when we try as hard as we can to remove the greenery from our view. Mixing color and contrast is one of the reasons a pork entry mixing in bark and non-bark pieces looks more appealing to the eye. Shapes, differing and complimentary, really bring it in also (ergo. mixing pork styles and/or beef sliced and chunks as you stated). None required, but if you want that presentation to really *POP* you'll understand these and use them to your advantage.

However, I wouldn't suggest making designs with your barbecue entry that really resemble (intentionally) something that some people find unpleasant or unappetizing. The best example I've seen of this (and I am disappointed to tell you that he got all 9's in presentation on this day) was DrBBQ's KCBS pork entry. Forgive me for being blunt, but he sliced and carved the money muscle in such a way that it looked like a penis and used scoops of pulled pork to compliment the penis with balls for a cock-n-balls presentation. I'm sorry, but I dont find a cock nor balls appetizing... :-(
Funny, but not appetizing.

Reply

Tom (bbq-tom)

9/24/2011 17:19:48

How did Dr.BBQ get away with "sculpting" his entry like that??? Should have been a DQ!

Reply

Hance

9/24/2011 18:20:05

I dont know. It appeared to be an obvious one to me; a mark, a very clear distinct mark. I've submitting the pic for judging here, love to see what people say.

DQ. If not DQ, I'm sorry, I dont find it funny and certainly not appetizing. Frankly, I found it insulting, but we can't factor that in. I probably would've given it an appearance score of a 3.

Reply

Herb - Master CBJ

10/10/2011 10:55:51

Hance,

Great column! Funny thing is that this issue of judging appearance has been swimming around in my head the past few months and here you are talking about it. We hold a similar point of view (with the exception of chicken). I'll get more into that in a blog.

While there are many KCBS guidelines to follow on tenderness, there are literally no requirements on taste and very few on appearance (which really only focus on ignoring garnish and watch out for DQ possibilities).

So yeah, it is all subjective and up to the judge to decide - "Is this appetizing?"

I appreciate your bringing this topic to light for discussion.
I judged a contest last weekend where the appearance scores were all over the board, and I'm having trouble figuring out why. I'm wondering if there's something going on with symmetry or arrangement. I really don't care if the thighs are all exactly the same size, or if the slices are all the same thickness - I want it to taste good, and if it looks like it's going to taste good, I give it a good score.
If the sauce isn't too heavy, and the color isn't too off, and it doesn't look dry, I score high.
I feel like there's plenty of opportunity to make a correction in the scores that have more weight. First impressions count, but I still need to eat it to know if it's any good.
Am I wrong?

Reply

Dave Compton - CBJ

10/10/2011 18:14:18

Hance, to me this is one of the grayer areas of our sport / hobby / obsession. You're right in that what is a perfect 9 (KCBS) to yo might be an 8 to me, but what really gripes me is when three judges give 9s, two 8s and a SIX??? Admittedly the 6 gets thrown out in KCBS, but why should there be that much differance? Are they judging the garnish itself or what? It just makes me wonder some times.

Reply

Hance

10/12/2011 19:25:32

Tom & Dave, thanks for your responses.

Tom, you hit it dead on when you said "if it looks like it's going to taste good". That is appetizing. That whets your appetite. That is exactly how to judge appearance. No more, and no less.

Dave, I really agree, and particularly on garnish. I dont think the human eye can really, 100% of the time, honestly remove it from the picture. As a result I'm of the opinion that it should be removed so that we have ONLY the meat to judge, and that we're judging it on its merits alone.

To be honest with you guys, garnish alone (because it is and can be judged) is why I dont compete in KCBS any longer. My fellow team mate loves KCBS mainly for brisket (he likes eating the left-overs). However, we dont compete in it any longer. If I really want to compete with a brisket I'll go the FBA route.

That may sound strange, but I really dont like competing in nonsense, and for this reason I wont compete in an unsanctioned competition either. Too much silliness. Same with garnish, IMHO.

Reply

Scott-CBJ

10/21/2011 05:52:23

Howdy Hance.
Thanks for pointing out that I would be incorrect in lowering score on pork box #57 for not enough samples.
I would be pissed though if I was #5 or #6 and didn't get one of the big slices or chunks!
Totally agree with you on garnish.